Steelers' Heinz Field landlord says it doesn't have to pay for new seats
The Sports & Exhibition Authority on Friday repeated its argument that it is not obligated to pay $29 million to cover most of the costs of a long-delayed 3,000-seat expansion and other upgrades to Heinz Field on the North Shore.
The Pittsburgh Steelers, doing business as PSSI Stadium Corp., filed a lawsuit in October to try to force the SEA, the football team's landlord, to pay to build seats in the south end zone, install a second video scoreboard in the north end zone and upgrade the stadium's control board.
The taxpayer-funded authority contends it is not responsible for the costs because Heinz Field, which opened in 2001, is comparable to other National Football League stadiums. SEA officials, who filed a brief on Friday, say the expansion does not qualify as a covered “capital improvement.”
A clause in the 30-year lease between the SEA and the Steelers says similar, publicly subsidized expansions must have occurred in at least half of other NFL stadiums. That has not happened.
In the lengthiest response to PSSI's lawsuit to date, SEA officials said the entire expansion and upgrade project the Steelers proposed would cost $39.2 million. It says the Steelers organization wants to contribute about $10.2 million toward the $30 million seat expansion project and expects the SEA to pay for the rest.
The scoreboard's cost is estimated at $3.65 million, and the control room upgrades, which the team has made, cost $5 million.
Jeremy Boren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7935or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.